Posts made by teslas

Alright, I’m going to try the same opening as last time, just for the sake of consistency. May the luckiest man win!

Test summary from TripleA, engine version: 1.8.0.9, time: 08:27:59

Test summary from TripleA, engine version: 1.8.0.9, time: 08:27:16

Here goes.

@SubmersedElk:

Transports would be far more useful for Germany… you could get two for just 2 IPC more, and get more units into Russian territory faster with it, and would be useful after Novogrod is captured as well, plus they’d help project threat on UK, Gibraltar, etc.

Yuuuuuuup. All fantastic points, with one final one: Those two German transports will never be producing allied units, no matter what, whereas the mIC would. The only negative transports have is that they can be destroyed, but even if they only do work 1-2 times in the game, they are still arguably extremely valuable.

Here’s a large post, from this very same page, discussing the very same thing:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36942.0

edit-
And looking at it, you actually made the last post there. I’m confused, and I’ll shut up now.

Alright, I’m back. Happy new year!

So I’ll start a game as axis and we’ll do +8/turn with US?

One of the worst things you can do is play multiple games against the TripleA AI. It teaches you awful habits. A couple of times to get a feel for TripleA itself? Sure, go nuts. After that, I’d suggest playing around with real people only.

Speaking of which, if you want a game, just send me a PM on the forum. I enjoy playing with new people.

Nippon’s suggestion of doing europe or pacific only is a great one, and I second it. Global is an entirely different animal than either half by itself, but playing one half of the board greatly reduces the complexity (and time) and lets you start to wrap your head around what is going on. The lessons you learn in Atlantic or Pacific are, by and large, relevant to global as well.

Most to least difficult:

For new players:

1: Japan
2: Germany
3: UK
4: Italy
5: Russia
6: USA
7: ANZAC

For somewhat experienced players, or at least how I feel about it:

1: USA
2: UK
3: ANZAC
4: Russia
5: Germany
6: Japan
7: Italy

China is just an extension of the unified allied resistance in the Pacific.

edit-
Wooops, totally misunderstood.

Nothing to see here, move along :p

Here’s a thread with a few pages of people talking about this very thing, and then also a lot of blah blah blah about various house rules:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36131.0

And here, specifically, was my take on the matter:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36131.msg1425375#msg1425375

But yes, doing a “netural crush” definitely has its place in the game for both sides.

@SubmersedElk:

There’s simply no way the Axis make any headway into Africa unless the Allies screw up bigtime. It’s the easiest place on the whole map for Allies to dominate. If you’re finding you can make successful invasions of Africa as Italy, you need to find better opponents if you want a challenging game.

I very well might be doing something wrong, so forgive me, but I don’t quite see it as you’ve described it, elk.

UK has two choices on UK1. Go super strong defense on London, or not. That, for me, always determines how the Mediterranean is going to end up. To be clear, the Axis never decides how Sea Lion or how fights in the med are going to go, the Allies do. The Axis’s job on the first two rounds of the game is simple: pick the weak point(s). The Allies are the ones to decide what those points are. The fickle b����-goddess of dice takes it from there.

There are a whole god damn slew of if/else if/else etc situations that follow, but I’ll try to simplify, leaving out entirely (non-standard) weird things Russia/US can do to make this wonky:

G1: “Standard”: smash against UK navy, take france, yugo gets strafed or whatever, + some kind of buy that can legitimately threaten sea lion,

UK1a: inf + fighter, or something similarly all-defensive.

UK1b: factory on Egypt
UK1c: taking Iraq (with help of UK Pac) (with the intention of a mIC on UK2 being placed there)
UK1d: something else heavy med, such as 2+ planes form London headed to the Med.

note: b, c, and d are not mutually exclusive

I1: Okay, then it comes around to Italy. If I see UK1a, which is “safe”, then I prep for an I2 hit on Cairo, usually, but not always.

G2: if UK1a: you could (and I often do) put lots of planes into Alexandria, prep for a Cairo hit, while usually sinking whatever allied boats are still around in the med.
G2: if UK1!a: sea lion is a very real option

UK2a: Oh ����, Egypt looks bad, do we try to save it or not? (UK’s option c resolves much of this)
UK2!a: Oh ����, London looks kinda bad, how do we fix this. (UK’s option c resolves much of this)

UK2?: Do we retreat from Cairo into trans jordan (perhaps toward our Iraq mIC) or to sundan (toward our south african mIC)? Or do we try to hold it?

I2a: potentially slam into Cairo with your 1x transport, planes, and your Alexandria/sub-saharan africa forces

G3a/I3a: Finish off what’s left of the UK in Egypt.
G3!a/I3!a: Sea lion? Abandon Africa as you might normally? Just crush Russia like a “normal” game?

edit-
The user Cow popularized this strategy. A slight bit more can be found at: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30167.0

Okay, with the above in mind, and I hope it’s at least somewhat clear, what are you left with? Italy is now sometimes in the fight in the Med, totally, even if it’s with remnant forces. They start the game with enough units to do this even if they are dumping their first two turns of income into mechs/tanks against Russia, mind you.

Italy’s taking of Egypt might demand a bit of attention from America (yay for Japan!) to put some pressure on the med, and at the very least, entirely flubs up UK Atlantic. With only very modest luck, there’re less UK fighters in Moscow, or less mechanized infantry coming up through the Caucasus, or less whatever UK involvement there might otherwise be. There’s also a bit of a speed bump, however large or small, when it comes for UK/US threatening a kill-italy-first (KIF). Much of this depends on 1: execution, 2: sacrifices the Allies choose make from other options, and 3: a bit (but not a lot) of luck of course.

So, elk, what I’m trying to posit here is that the Axis can still make useful headway into Africa, if not only just the very north tip of it (which is the most pivotal point), even if the Allies don’t “screw up”, depending on some conditions and playstyles.

This game suffers from some lack of viable options at times, but the African/Med theater is not absolutely one of them.

Final note: I never play with bids (I prefer a static per-turn bonus to the US). With bids, and where they almost always (arguably very rightfully) usually go, Africa is basically always a statistical dead end for the Axis.

My idea is that your post is interesting, but it is in the wrong forum.

Alright, sounds good. I’ll see you back here in about 2.5 weeks, sir!

Yes, but if you attacked, you’d be too far away to squash those dirty republicans/communists when they betrayed you and your fragile alliance!

Yeah, I’m down with that. We can try 10 or 8, your choice.

However, I am leaving on a vacation in a few days, and will be gone for two weeks. When I’m back, I’ll post Germany’s turn and we’ll rock it up?

(Unlike what the others have said, I’m not that much of a friendly kind of guy, but I did genuinely mean the line about welcoming you to the board.)

Come on, man, it’s even on the front page of the forum at the moment:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30776

Regardless, welcome!

No, I don’t think it’s over because of the +14 IPCs/turn. I think it was mostly because I rushed through my German turn at work and didn’t put enough time into thinking about it, saving a bunch of IPCs with Germany I could have spent to keep Berlin. Granted, those +14 IPCs a turn, including the first round, were a massive part of how well the allies were doing, of course.

I think Moscow when it occurred was the correct choice. Russia was due for reinforcements, and the middle east was firmly in britain’s possession. Any delay in the east to kill units would have lead to a front I could never have won. Taking Moscow greatly swayed the economic balance of the game. I could have held it and pushed against the front in the caucasus.

With all my air back in europe, that would have been a long slog, but I think Berlin was safe, if not able to expand back out a bit, for at least a few turns. During that time, Japan would have been doing work.

Well damn, I missed that so many American bombers were in range when I looked around.

I will go ahead and forfeit the game, then.

Shame, too, as the Axis were doing pretty well, actually, and I had all the IPCs I needed to build things in Berlin to keep this from happening.

Sorry for cutting your game short!